You must log in or # to comment.
The act of measuring human and animal lives by their relative worth is in and of itself meaningless reactionary bullshit, just pure discourse without any sort of bearing on real life. It proves nothing except for the fact that the person who’s even making that argument is trying to signal this insufferable sense of superiority that’s just pathetic really.
Nowadays, whenever someone says something along the lines of “I would kill a thousand dogs to save a single human”, I just go ahead and ask them if they would suck off a thousand dogs to save a single human. There’s really no better response, because there are no other responses that are worth spending your time thinking about. A ridiculous premise gets a ridiculous answer and that’s it.
This is amazing.
i tell them i would kill a thousand humans and just stare at them while they wait for me to finish the sentence that never comes
🎶this is something you can’t understand¹⁰⁰⁰🎶
Alternatively you can also tell them that you would kill them a thousand times for using that stupid hypothetical
deleted by creator
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
cute cow
vs.
george w bush
A blanket statement like that is very easily disproven.
“The value of a human life is worth more than the lives of thousands of animals” MFs when you ask them how many human lives are destroyed by the factory farming industry
Slaughterhouse workers have a disproportionately high rate of PTSD but vegoon bad.
Also where a lot of the child labor and work accidents/injuries happen
Oh are we valuing life? Are we doing thought experiments of who gets to who lives and who doesn’t? What a normal thing to do, lets go:
- 1000 kittens or hitler?
- 500 kittens or 500 hitlers?
- 100 kittens or 900 hitlers?
- 1 kitten or 1000 hitlers?
.
.
-
your family pet or your child?
-
your family pet or your family home?
-
your family pet or your childs college?
-
your family pet or your family vacation?
-
your family pet or one days worth of food?
-
your family pet or your gaming pc?
-
100000000000 cows or one kitten?
and so on…
the answer of course is that it’s all pure idealism and the framing is set up in a way that inevitably leads to white supremacist views
I mean mostly of course this is a nonsense discourse but I would choose the one kitten over the thousand Hitlers and it’s not even close
i would choose a million mosquitoes in my bedroom over a below averagely annoying human
Uh. I am saying that literally Adolf fucking Hitler shouldn’t be defended regardless of how you feel about kittens. Not sure what you are saying but I do not in fact think that a million mosquitos - neither in my bedroom nor anywhere else - are more important than any random person, unless that person is a Hitler level prick. Maybe I have misunderstood your comment but I really am not sure what’s up here.
Sorry, genuinely asking- how does the framing inevitably lead to white supremacist views?
I personally enjoy these sorts of thought experiments / hypotheticals to explore my values. Of course, I don’t use them in debates or as some sort of “gotcha”
It’s also strange, to me, seeing idealism shat on here
I feel like I must be missing something and fundamentally misunderstanding your point
“One being is inherently worth more than another and that therefore means that it’s okay to kill the inferior” seems like it can’t lead to any end point except some kind of racial supremacy as far as I’m concerned. There are two obvious flaws that lead there
-
The idea that lives can/should be compared as more or less deserving based on traits of birth rather than choices made
-
The idea that the more deserving have some authority to murder the less deserving for some unexplained reason
??? It doesn’t inherently mean it’s okay to kill the other. And what does race have to do with it?
If someone asked me whether I’d rather save a person of color or a white person- I have no rational preference, so I’d pass. Boring question.
This is about different species though. E.g., the parent comment posed a bunch of cows vs a kitten. If I could save a bunch of cows by killing a kitten, I’d do it. Now you and I have just learned something about my values, and I think that’s neat.
Then we really get into moral dilemmas with human vs non-human. I know the trolley problem is controversial, but it’s a genuinely great way to explore values. If I had to choose between killing 1 cow or 1 person, I’d choose the cow. But what about several cows? If a genie popped up and told me I could magically make the whole world vegan, but one random human would die a sudden tragic death, I’d make that deal. Where’s my line though? There must be a specific number at which I switch from sparing the human to sacrificing the human. These questions are about discovering those boundaries for yourself, and I don’t think that’s bad
It doesn’t inherently mean it’s okay to kill the other.
But that’s literally the view that it is being used to support.
And what does race have to do with it?
You don’t see how “I’ve decided based on traits inherent to their birth that this being doesn’t deserve to live” could trigger alarms relating to racism?
But that’s literally the view that it is being used to support.
No it’s not
You don’t see how “I’ve decided based on traits inherent to their birth that this being doesn’t deserve to live” could trigger alarms relating to racism?
I realize that speciesism is similar to racism. I made a whole zine about that in college. But you can’t just entirely conflate them- that feels even more racist
No it’s not
Sorry, I think you’re deep enough in Debate Land that you’ve lost sight of what we’re actually talking about. Take a step back and just look at the original post, and then at the top level comment which this conversation is replying to, and try again.
Or in short, yuh-huh.
I’ve been doing that each time I reply and I’m still baffled. I wasn’t being rhetorical when I said I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding, but I’m beginning to question whether that misunderstanding is actually not on my part as I had original suspected
If someone asked me whether I’d rather save a person of color or a white person- I have no rational preference, so I’d pass. Boring question.
New tagline, also I hope you get banned soon.
Literally what is happening here?
None of the people you responded to even so much as scratched you, yet somehow it took you little to no prompting to start emitting hitlerite particles as early as your second sentence. Incredible
I feel like I’m going crazy here. Please share what I said that comes across as hitlerite and, if you wouldn’t mind, explain why?
I realize this will probably come across like sealioning but I’m genuinely so confused. I’m a vegan, an anarchist, and a social worker therapist. I’m being sincere here
-
”Unproductive discussions”
”Advertisement for veganism”
That place is trash, but at least it makes me glad Hexbear doesn’t allow antiveganism.
Even if you take an impossibly extreme view, like each human is worth 10 trillion cows, going vegan is still a moral imperative. I swear to fuck if any of you liberals agree with this reddit garbage I will pants you in public and everyone will laugh
GAHH! Even if you agree with the premise, are a 100% anthropocentric asshole, and assign no value to animal life: you should still be vegan!This would only make sense if there was like a literal gun to a person’s head and a dog’s head or something. Which is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen. You can be against battery farming without putting human lives at risk (in fact you’d actually save a lot of lives since battery farmed animals are responsible for antibiotic resistance and a massive vector for disease).
“I think human life is more important than the life of a non-human animal” sure, you can hold that opinion without resorting the ridiculous hyperbole. At least present a reasonable argument for that point.
Basically
Which is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen.
The devious Jigsaw
“Buy this magazine or we shoot this dog” but as policy
Exactly, the scenario has nothing to do with veganism, it’s just a strawman
My lifetime earnings is worth less than 1000 trees. I think about that a lot.
Only because your life is priceless BigWeed
I agree with this decision. It’s far too easy for troll farms to sow division in leftist spaces using these social justice stances.
lol
who even are these dipshits
Redditors.
Fuck these guys they sound like Trots.
Is r/leftist one of the subs that got taken over by ACP goons? It would make some sense
I don’t think so. /r/leftist has the problem of being on
where a bunch of radlibs who think they’re leftists lurkYes I’m a leftist, I think people who don’t get paid a lot should be left behind.
Isn’t that r/asksocialists or something? I dunno, the only non-hobby or DIY sub I fuck with is r/TrueAnon
One life worth thousands of animals? So what will they say when billions of non-human land animals are killed over the course of a year? If they were serious (which they’re deeply not,) this would be tragedy to them even if the life of each non-human animal were worth ten thousand less.
